ACS Bloghttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/200710
enLegalEyes for March 3, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-march-3-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p>At <em><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-the-obamacare-lawsuit-charade">MSNBC</a></em>, <strong>Ari Melber </strong>argues that the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in <em>King v. Burwell</em> is a charade.</p><p><strong>Sahil Kapur </strong>writes for <em><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/congress-supreme-court-obamacare">Talking Points Memo</a></em> that if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act, dysfunction in the Republican-led Congress will lead to healthcare chaos.</p><p>At the <em><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/obamacare-supreme-court_n_6783894.html">Huffington Post</a></em>, <strong>Jonathan Cohn </strong>examines the path of lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act and its dubious basis.</p><p><strong>Simon Lazarus </strong>reviews the new book from <strong>Robert A. Katzmann</strong> at <em><a href="http://www.democracyjournal.org/35/the-letter-of-the-law.php?page=all">Democracy</a></em> and considers how <em>King v. Burwell</em> will show whether conservative justices will &ldquo;follow common-sense principles&rdquo; or side with those who hope to rationalize &ldquo;politically driven, legally flimsy results.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Noah Feldman</strong> takes a look at the recent Arizona redistricting case at <em><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-02/founders-would-approve-of-arizona-s-meddling">Bloomberg View</a></em> and asserts that the founders would approve of the state&rsquo;s referendum model of redistricting.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/199217/fifty-years-after-march-selma-everything-and-nothing-has-changed">The Nation</a></em>, <strong>Ari Berman </strong>asserts that racism, inequality, and segregation persist fifty years after Selma.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-march-3-2015#commentsAffordable Care ActArizona redistrictinghealth carehealth care exchangesKing v. BurwellLegalEyesredistrictingTue, 03 Mar 2015 15:01:19 +0000ccox923817969 at http://www.acslaw.orgHow the Supreme Court’s Decision in King v. Burwell Could Affect the Public’s Healthhttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/how-the-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-decision-in-king-v-burwell-could-affect-the-public%E2%80%99s-health
<p><em>by <a href="http://publichealth.gwu.edu/faculty/index.cfm?empName=%20Sara%20Rosenbaum&amp;employeeID=60">Sara Rosenbaum</a>, Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University and <a href="https://www.apha.org/about-apha/executive-board-and-staff/apha-executive-board/georges-c-benjamin-md-facp-fnapa-facep-hon-frsph">Georges Benjamin,</a> executive director, American Public Health Association</em></p><p><em>King v Burwell </em>carries profound public health implications.</p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/GavelImage_4.jpg" style="width: 250px; height: 167px; margin: 5px; float: right;" />The central legal question in this case is whether the Internal Revenue Service properly interprets 26 U.S.C. 36B to make the federal premium tax credits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) available to all eligible taxpayers through the Exchanges in every state. It is evident from the <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-114-Respondents-Brief.pdf">government&rsquo;s brief</a> as well as briefs filed by <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Bipartisan%2014-114%20bsac%20Bipartisan%20Economic%20Scholars.pdf/538890792/SC%20amicus%20Bipartisan%2014-114%20bsac%20Bipartisan%20Economic%20Scholars.pdf">leading economists</a>, who argue the ACA cannot function without premium subsidies&nbsp; &nbsp;and <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20AHIP%2014-114%20bsac%20America%27s%20Health%20Insurance%20Plans.pdf/538891204/SC%20amicus%20AHIP%2014-114%20bsac%20America%27s%20Health%20Insurance%20Plans.pdf">insurers</a>, who argue that broad risk pools are an essential component of the ACA and therefore must have been required for every state regardless of who runs the exchange that a Supreme Court decision in favor of the petitioners in <em>King v. Burwell</em> could unravel the industry in dozens of states rather than strengthen it, as the ACA&nbsp; was structured to do.</p><p>But the harms flowing from a decision against the government transcend a crisis in the insurance markets: by stripping residents of subsidies in the 34 states that depend on the federal Exchange, a decision against the government would carry enormous implications for public health. &nbsp;For this reason, over 100 public health deans and scholars joined the American Public Health Association to file an <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Public%20Health%20Deans%20.pdf/539134648/SC%20amicus%20Public%20Health%20Deans%20.pdf">amicus brief</a> on behalf of the government, arguing in favor of a ruling that would uphold access to affordable insurance for nearly all Americans, regardless of the state in which they live.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/how-the-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-decision-in-king-v-burwell-could-affect-the-public%E2%80%99s-health" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/how-the-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-decision-in-king-v-burwell-could-affect-the-public%E2%80%99s-health#commentsHealth Care ReformACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumGuest Posthealth care exchangesKing v. BurwellMon, 02 Mar 2015 16:35:43 +0000ccox923817967 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for March 2, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-march-2-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p>The Editorial Board of <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/the-phony-legal-attack-on-health-care.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss">The New York Times</a></em> criticizes the legal attack of the Affordable Care Act in <em>King v. Burwell</em>.</p><p><strong>Robert Barnes </strong>argues in <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-threatens-to-end-john-robertss-dream-of-a-nonpartisan-supreme-court/2015/02/27/325cd0cc-bcb3-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?tid=sm_fb">The Washington Post</a></em> that <em>King v. Burwell</em> threatens Chief Justice <strong>John Roberts&rsquo;s </strong>work to create a Supreme Court that appears less partisan.</p><p>In the <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0227-gorod-obamacare-scotus-20150225-story.html">Los Angeles Times</a></em>, <strong>Brianne J. Gorod</strong> predicts that the Chief Justice will rule for the government in <em>King v. Burwell</em>, arguing that &ldquo;He&rsquo;s too good a lawyer to do otherwise.&rdquo;</p><p>In <em><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/a-deadly-assault-on-academic-freedom_b_6776322.html">The Huffington Post</a></em>, <strong>Geoffrey R. Stone </strong>calls the recent decision to close the University of North Carolina Law School&rsquo;s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity &ldquo;a blatant and dangerous instance of political interference with academic freedom.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Matt Apuzzo</strong> writes for <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;module=first-column-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news">The New York Times</a></em> about the Justice Department&rsquo;s critical report of the police in Ferguson, Missouri.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-march-2-2015#commentsChief Justice John RobertsFergusonKing v. BurwellLegalEyesMon, 02 Mar 2015 16:31:58 +0000ccox923817966 at http://www.acslaw.orgLeading Legal Scholars on Stakes in Latest Effort to Topple Obamacarehttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/leading-legal-scholars-on-stakes-in-latest-effort-to-topple-obamacare
<p><em>by <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/jleaming">Jeremy Leaming</a></em></p><p>Yes,&nbsp;<em>King v. Burwell</em> is fundamentally a case dealing with a statutory matter, not a lofty constitutional claim, but at the end of the day one must not forget that this statutory-based case, if handled improperly by the Supreme Court, will harm millions of Americans, making economic inequalities worse in this country and sending the nation&rsquo;s health care system into chaos. That&rsquo;s according to <a href="http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/">Erwin Chemerinsky</a>, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and one of the nation&rsquo;s leading legal scholars, who along with Yale Law School Professor <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/AGluck.htm">Abbe Gluck </a>were featured in a <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/node/923817956">February 26 ACS briefing on <em>King</em></a>, which the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in on March 4.</p><p>&ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s important for us to focus on who is going to suffer from a result of this [a ruling by the Supreme Court that would buy the Obamacare challengers&rsquo; argument],&rdquo; Chemerinsky said toward the end of the discussion. &ldquo;There are millions of individuals who will no longer have health insurance because they won&rsquo;t be able to afford it without&rdquo; the tax credits. Such an outcome would bring down the Affordable Care Act, leaving millions without health care coverage and millions more with higher costs to keep it, he said.</p><p>Gluck noted the highly politicized nature of <em>King</em>, but focused on the statutory challenge and the role of the Supreme Court.</p><p>&ldquo;The case at bottom is about how the Supreme Court is going to do textual interpretation of four words in a two-thousand page law that is very complex. The challengers want the Court to look at these four words &ndash; the words are &lsquo;established by the state,&rsquo; &hellip; in a vacuum, and the government is saying just as the court has done time and time again &hellip; that you have to look at statutory language in context and against the backdrop of all of the other legal principles, including federalism and agency deference that the Court has traditionally used to interpret statutes.&rdquo;</p><p>Gluck said there is a lot of extra textual narrative and history being invoked in the case, but not by the government. &ldquo;There is a whole blogosphere set of activity, that is aimed to construct a narrative to convince the Court that what the challengers are arguing is true &ndash; that it is actually possible that Congress could have written a statute into which it sowed the seeds of its own destruction,&rdquo; Gluck continued.</p><p>Without that narrative, Gluck said, &ldquo;it is impossible to think that any court would buy that story because it is so destructive to the statute as a whole and it is implausible to think Congress would have ever intended it.&rdquo;</p><p>Listen to the entire <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/node/923817956">discussion here</a>. For more on <em>King v. Burwell</em>, see Chemerinsky&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_scotus_gets_another_look_at_the_affordable_care_act">recent <em>ABA Journal</em> piece</a> and Gluck&rsquo;s Feb. 27 <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/king-v-burwell-states-rights-115550.html?hp=r4_4#.VPDEh0JDauY">article for <em>Politico Magazine</em></a>.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/leading-legal-scholars-on-stakes-in-latest-effort-to-topple-obamacare#commentsHealth Care ReformAbbe GluckACSblog Constitution Day SymposiumErwin ChemerinskyKing v. BurwellFri, 27 Feb 2015 19:06:02 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817964 at http://www.acslaw.orgRespecting the Stateshttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/respecting-the-states
<p><em>by <a href="http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=nbagley">Nicholas Bagley</a>, A</em><em>ssistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School.</em></p>
<p><em>*</em><em>This piece first <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/respecting-the-states/">appeared</a> at </em>The Incidental Economist<em>.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>One of the strangest things about&nbsp;<em>King v. Burwell&nbsp;</em>is the challengers&rsquo; claim that the ACA clearly withholds tax credits from states that refused to set up exchanges. Whe<img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/Supcourt5_3.jpg" style="width: 250px; height: 212px; margin: 5px; float: right;" />n asked why on earth Congress would do such a thing, the challengers insist that Congress badly wanted the states to establish their own exchanges. The tax credits were, on this view, a carrot to prompt state participation.</p>
<p>Some federal programs do work kind of like this. Medicaid, for example, dangles federal money to the states in order to encourage them to participate. If a state doesn&rsquo;t accept the conditions that Congress places on receiving that money, then the state doesn&rsquo;t get the money. In the lingo, Medicaid is a conditional spending program.</p>
<p>When it comes to the exchanges, however, the ACA is&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>a conditional spending program. And it&rsquo;s not a close call: the ACA doesn&rsquo;t look like any other conditional spending program in the U.S. Code. Together with Thomas Merrill, Gillian Metzger, and Abbe Gluck, I submitted&nbsp;<a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-114_amicus_resp_merrill.authcheckdam.pdf">an amicus brief</a>&nbsp;to the Supreme Court explaining why. (Abbe&nbsp;<a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamacare-subsidies-before-dc-circuit_24.html">developed</a>&nbsp;some of these arguments in a blog post last year.)</p>
<p>For starters, Congress isn&rsquo;t coy about what happens when a state fails to participate in a conditional spending program. It speaks clearly&mdash;the state doesn&rsquo;t get the money&mdash;and that consequence is spelled out in a provision that speaks directly to states. That&rsquo;s how the Medicaid statute&nbsp;<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1396c">works</a>: when a state fails to play by Medicaid&rsquo;s rules, &ldquo;the Secretary [of HHS] shall notify such State agency that further payments will not be made to the State.&rdquo; Direct and clear.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/respecting-the-states" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/respecting-the-states#commentsAffordable Care ActGuest PostKing v. BurwellMedicaidFri, 27 Feb 2015 15:32:15 +0000ccox923817962 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 27, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-27-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p>At <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-king-v-burwell/2015/02/26/a1f8472e-ad8e-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html?postshare=9991424980112340">The Washington Post</a></em>, <strong>Elizabeth B. Wydra</strong> discusses five myths about <em>King v. Burwell</em> and argues that &ldquo;the Affordable Care Act provides financial assistance to all Americans who need it, regardless of who administers the insurance marketplace in their state.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Sarah Kilff</strong> writes at <em><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8110789/king-burwell-cancer-texas">Vox</a> </em>that the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision on the Affordable Care Act will decide not only the fate of the ACA, but also whether a cancer patient can receive chemotherapy.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/finally-net-neutrality/?ref=opinion&amp;_r=1&amp;gwh=7A178674E9D44EC56360DEA260905DF0&amp;gwt=pay&amp;assetType=opinion">The New York Times</a></em>, <strong>Vikas Bajaj </strong>argues that the FCC&rsquo;s approval of strong net neutrality rules is &ldquo;the right thing for the public interest.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Steven Mazie </strong>of <em><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21645226-can-muslim-woman-be-denied-job-because-her-headscarf-dress-codes?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/dress_codes">The Economist</a></em> considers the recent oral argument for the religious discrimination case against retailer Abercrombie &amp; Fitch.</p><p><strong>Nina Totenberg </strong>of <em><a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/02/26/389177419/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-fisherman-in-missing-fish-case">NPR</a></em> provides a look at the ruling in <em>Yates v. United States</em>, which questioned whether a law designed to prevent document shredding could be applied to objects such as fish.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-27-2015#commentsAbercrombie & FitchAffordable Care ActKing v. BurwellLegalEyesYates v. United StatesFri, 27 Feb 2015 14:59:11 +0000ccox923817961 at http://www.acslaw.orgJudicial Nominations Roundup for February 27, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/judicial-nominations-roundup-for-february-27-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/JudicialnomsblogImage.jpg" style="width: 250px; height: 164px; margin: 5px; float: right;" />On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report four judicial nominees to the Senate floor: <strong>Alfred H. Bennett, George C. Hanks, Jr.</strong>, and <strong>Jose Rolando Olvera, Jr., </strong>to be U.S. District Judges for the Southern District of Texas, and <strong>Jill N. Parrish</strong> to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah.&nbsp;</p><p>Also on Thursday, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/26/president-obama-nominates-two-serve-united-states-district-courts">the White House</a> announced the nomination of <strong>Mary Barzee Flores </strong>and <strong>Julien Xavier Neals</strong> to serve on the United States District Courts. Flores is nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and Neals is nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.</p><p><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/content/republican-inaction-judicial-emergencies-jump">People for the American Way</a> discuss at their blog the problem with Republican inaction as judicial emergencies increase. Due to delays in identifying recommendations for vacancies and scheduling committee votes, there are now multiple situations in which vacancies have become judicial emergencies.</p><p>There are currently 49 vacancies, and 20 are now considered judicial emergencies. There are 14 pending nominees. For more information see&nbsp;<a href="http://judicialnominations.org/">judicialnominations.org</a>.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/judicial-nominations-roundup-for-february-27-2015#commentsJudicial Emergencyjudicial nominations roundupJudicial VacanciesPeople For the American WaySenate Judiciary CommitteeFri, 27 Feb 2015 14:37:18 +0000ccox923817959 at http://www.acslaw.orgStatutory Sleight of Hand: How the Plaintiffs in Latest Obamacare Challenge Have Used a Magic Trick to Obscure the Legal Issueshttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/statutory-sleight-of-hand-how-the-plaintiffs-in-latest-obamacare-challenge-have-used-a-magic
<p><em>by <a href="http://law.gsu.edu/profile/eric-j-segall/">Eric J. Segall</a>, the Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law</em></p><p><em>*This post is part of the <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium">ACSblog King v. Burwell symposium</a>.</em></p><p>The plaintiffs in the latest Obamacare case, <em><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/">King v. Burwell</a></em>, to be argued next Wednesday in the Supreme Court, have (s<img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/ACApic2.jpg" style="width: 193px; height: 140px; border-width: 0pt; border-style: solid; margin: 5px; float: right;" />o far) pulled off an amazing magic trick right in front of the eyes of the American people and possibly the Supreme Court of the United States. They, along with Professor Jonathan Adler, the architect of the litigation strategy, have focused their audiences&rsquo; attention on one part of a 900 page law that, read in isolation, supports their case while masterfully diverting the audience&rsquo;s attention away from the part of the law that shows why their claims have no merit. They have crated this illusion not simply by focusing on one specific statutory provision (as <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-114_amicus_resp_eskridge.authcheckdam.pdf">others</a> have shown), but based on the <em>order in which they have asked the Court to interpret the statutory provisions at issue.</em> This may seem too obvious but the best magic tricks are often based on a single instance of substantial misdirection.</p><p>The plaintiffs and Professor Adler tell the following story: They start with <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B">Section 1311</a> of the Affordable Care Act (&ldquo;ACA&rdquo;) and argue that it requires &ldquo;qualified individuals&rdquo; eligible for federal health insurance subsidies to purchase their insurance from an &ldquo;exchange established by the state.&rdquo; The federal government is not a &ldquo;state,&rdquo; they argue (persuasively) and therefore the plain text of Section 1311 forbids subsidies on federal exchanges. That common-sense interpretation, they claim, can only be overcome if the result is absurd. They argue that it is not absurd, and thus the plaintiffs have to win.</p><p>This discussion of the issue, set up by the plaintiffs, and their lawyers and allies through lower court briefs, social media, and newspaper op-eds, while successful at putting the government on the defensive, is wildly out of touch with the true legal nature of the case.</p><p>The question whether the Secretary of the IRS exceeded his legal authority by interpreting the ACA to allow subsidies on federal exchanges starts, not with Section 1311 as the plaintiffs would have you believe, but instead with the &nbsp;section of the law actually relied on by the Secretary for that authority--<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18041">Section 1321</a>. &nbsp;If we start there, with that baseline, it is easy to see why the plaintiffs&rsquo; claims have no merit.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/statutory-sleight-of-hand-how-the-plaintiffs-in-latest-obamacare-challenge-have-used-a-magic" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/statutory-sleight-of-hand-how-the-plaintiffs-in-latest-obamacare-challenge-have-used-a-magic#commentsSupreme CourtHealth Care ReformACAACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumAffordable Care ActEric SegallGuest PostThu, 26 Feb 2015 23:30:03 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817957 at http://www.acslaw.orgWill Text or Context Reign Supreme in King v. Burwell?http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/will-text-or-context-reign-supreme-in-king-v-burwell
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://wyattfirm.com/professionals-detail/douglas-l-mcswain"><em>Douglas L. McSwain</em></a><em>, Partner, Wyatt, Tarrant &amp; Combs LLP</em></p><p><em>*This post is part of the </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium"><em>ACSblog </em>King v. Burwell<em> symposium</em></a>.</p><p>On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/"><em>King v. Burwell</em></a>, a lawsuit attacking premium assistance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for those who live in states where the only Obamacare health insurance marketplace is the federal &ldquo;exchange,&rdquo; <em>i.e.</em>, <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/">Healthcare.gov</a>.</p><p><strong><em><u>The </u></em></strong><strong><u>King v. Burwell <em>Dispute:&nbsp; Text vs. </em></u></strong><strong><u>Con<em>text</em></u></strong><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/ACAshutterstock2.jpg" style="width: 185px; height: 123px; border-width: 0pt; border-style: solid; margin: 5px; float: right;" /></p><p><strong><em>Background: </em></strong>&nbsp;The ACA grants tax credits, based on income level, for individual health insurance purchased in the Obamacare marketplaces, also known as &ldquo;exchanges.&rdquo;&nbsp; These credits may be claimed as premium assistance subsidies for a health plan selected by the taxpayer. In 2015&rsquo;s open enrollment, over 9 million people purchased plans in the federal exchange, and of those about 87 percent, or over 7.5 million, purchased with premium subsidies. The <em>King</em> case questions the legality of these subsidies, and its outcome may determine whether 7.5 million or more taxpayers can continue to purchase insurance.</p><p>There are two types of Obamacare marketplaces: state exchanges and the federal exchange. The ACA created the federal exchange for individuals who live in states that refuse or fail to set up their own state exchange. Currently, a total of 37 states do not have state exchanges, and those states&rsquo; taxpayers must use the federal exchange. &nbsp;</p><p><strong><em>The </em></strong><strong>King <em>Challengers&rsquo; Argument</em></strong>:&nbsp;Premium subsidies are not allowed in the federal exchange.&nbsp; The ACA&rsquo;s text<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> creating the tax credit only provides for subsidies in &ldquo;<em>an Exchange <u>established by the State</u></em>.&rdquo;&nbsp;The federal exchange has <em>not</em> been established by any state.&nbsp; So, no tax subsidies can be provided in it, and taxpayers who live in the federal-exchange states cannot benefit from subsidies.&nbsp;</p><p>The <em>King</em> challengers&rsquo; argument is simple: &ldquo;textualism&rdquo; is supreme, and the specific statutory text creating the tax credit is controlling!</p><p><strong><em>The Obama Administration&rsquo;s Response</em></strong>:&nbsp;The text creating the tax credit cannot be taken out of <strong><em>context</em></strong>. The challengers read it myopically, in spite of the ACA&rsquo;s whole text and meaning, and in disregard of the law&rsquo;s overall intent.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/will-text-or-context-reign-supreme-in-king-v-burwell" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/will-text-or-context-reign-supreme-in-king-v-burwell#commentsSupreme CourtHealth Care ReformACAACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumAffordable Care ActDouglas McSwainGuest Posttax creditstextThu, 26 Feb 2015 15:59:30 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817953 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 26, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-26-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><strong>Matt Ford</strong> considers at <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/can-bipartisanship-end-mass-incarceration/386012/"><em>The Atlantic</em></a> whether a new bipartisan coalition can help end mass incarceration.</p><p><strong>Elizabeth Warren </strong>argues in <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html">The Washington Post</a></em> against the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a &ldquo;massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries.&rdquo;</p><p>In the <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_scotus_gets_another_look_at_the_affordable_care_act/?utm_source=maestro&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=daily_email"><em>ABA Journal</em></a>, <strong>Erwin Chemerinsky</strong> writes about <em>King v. Burwell</em>, arguing that the &ldquo;case is about life and death in determining whether millions of people will still have health insurance and access to health care.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Brianne Gorod</strong> explains at the <a href="http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/3133/government%E2%80%99s-loss-supreme-court-today-may-signal-more-important-win-down-road">blog for the Constitutional Accountability Center</a> that the government&rsquo;s loss in <em>Yates v. United States</em> on Wednesday may signal good news for the future <em>King v. Burwell </em>decision.</p><p><strong>Jamelle Bouie </strong>of <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/the_next_republican_attack_on_voting_right_democrats_should_fight_for_a.html"><em>Slate</em></a> discusses new efforts to restrict voting in various states and why the United States needs a constitutional right-to-vote amendment.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-26-2015#commentsElizabeth WarrenKing v. BurwellLegalEyesMass IncarcerationRight to VoteYates v. United StatesThu, 26 Feb 2015 14:32:35 +0000ccox923817951 at http://www.acslaw.orgReligious Accommodations for Employees and Applicants Under Title VII: Who Has the Burden?http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/religious-accommodations-for-employees-and-applicants-under-title-vii-who-has-the-burden
<p><em>by Clark Taylor<strong>, </strong>Paul H. Tobias Attorney Fellow, <a href="http://www.employeerightsadvocacy.org/index.php">The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law &amp; Policy</a></em></p><p>In 2008 Samantha Elauf applied for a job at her local Abercrombie &amp; Fitch clothing store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. During her interview Elauf, who is a practicing Muslim, wore a hijab or headscarf. Though her headscarf was clearly visible to the hiring man<img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/highcourt3_33.JPG" style="width: 169px; height: 130px; border-width: 0pt; border-style: solid; margin: 5px; float: right;" />ager who interviewed her, Elauf was never asked if she needed a religious accommodation as provided for by law. This is despite the fact that there is a company policy prohibiting the wearing of headwear by &ldquo;models&rdquo;&mdash;the in-house name for what are essentially sales associates, the position to which Elauf applied.</p><p>Though she initially received a high score from her interviewer, Elauf was denied the job after the hiring manager spoke with a district manager who said that the headwear was against company policy. After being denied the position, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit on her behalf alleging that Elauf was not hired as a result of her religion in a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent amendments. While the EEOC prevailed on summary judgment and at trial on damages, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held that because Elauf never explicitly informed her potential employer that she needed a religious accommodation, Abercrombie &amp; Fitch was not liable for violating the statute. Today the United States Supreme Court hears <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-86_5425.pdf">oral argument</a> in the case, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-86.htm"><em>EEOC v. Abercrombie &amp; Fitch Stores, Inc</em>.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/religious-accommodations-for-employees-and-applicants-under-title-vii-who-has-the-burden" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/religious-accommodations-for-employees-and-applicants-under-title-vii-who-has-the-burden#commentsSupreme CourtClark TaylorEEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch StoresGuest PostInc.The Employees Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & PolicyWed, 25 Feb 2015 19:48:01 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817950 at http://www.acslaw.orgThe Alternative Reality of King v. Burwellhttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-alternative-reality-of-king-v-burwell
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.arnoldporter.com/professionals.cfm?action=view&amp;id=253"><em>Rob Weiner</em></a><em>, formerly Associate Deputy Attorney General In the United States Department of Justice, is a partner at Arnold &amp; Porter LLP. </em></p><p><em>*This post is part of the </em><a href="../../acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium"><em>ACSblog </em>King v. Burwell<em> symposium</em></a><em>.</em></p><p>In <em>King v. Burwell, </em>the Petitioners challenge an IRS rule granting tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to low income families in states with federal insurance Exchanges so that those families can buy health insurance.&nbsp; The Government&rsquo;s brief to the Supreme Court predicted that without the subsidies, insurance markets in the states with federal Exchanges would descend into death spirals.&nbsp; Petitioners&rsquo; reply brief countered that even if this prediction were true:</p><blockquote><p>[T]hese consequences are the result of the IRS Rule [allowing the subsidies], not the statute.&nbsp; Had the IRS from the start made clear that subsidies were limited to state Exchanges, states would not have overwhelmingly refused to establish them.</p></blockquote><p>The irony of this claim is thick.&nbsp; From the start, opponents of the ACA mounted a campaign against the Exchanges, going so far as to dispatch traveling road shows in 2011-12 to lobby state legislatures against establishing them.&nbsp; Ultimately, 34 states did as urged and declined to set up their own Exchanges.&nbsp; Nonetheless, Petitioners now blame the IRS rule for that result.</p><p>The accusation is especially brazen because the opponents did not base these pitches on the IRS rule.&nbsp; The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an influential right-wing group that focuses on state legislation and that commissioned its own anti-Exchange road show, adopted a resolution in October 2011 entreating states not to establish Exchanges.&nbsp; Notably, the resolution assured the states that, &ldquo;There is no penalty for a state in allowing the federal government to implement an Exchange.&rdquo;&nbsp; But the resolution mentioned neither the tax subsidies nor the IRS rule proposed two months earlier.&nbsp; Likewise, the Heritage Foundation exhorted states to refuse to establish Exchanges, and it, too, did not base its argument on subsidies and the IRS rule.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-alternative-reality-of-king-v-burwell" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-alternative-reality-of-king-v-burwell#commentsSupreme CourtHealth Care ReformACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumAffordable Care Actfederal exchangesGuest PostIRSKing v. BurwellRob WeinerWed, 25 Feb 2015 15:29:27 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817946 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 25, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-25-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><strong>Katrina vanden Heuvel </strong>writes in <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rethinking-local-incarceration/2015/02/24/2f98a3c4-bb97-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html">The Washington Post</a></em> that there is reason to hope for significant criminal justice reform</p><p>In <em><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/24/supreme-court-abercrombie-muslim/23882405/">USA Today</a></em>, <strong>Richard Wolf </strong>explains the religious discrimination case against retailor Abercrombie &amp; Fitch, which asks to the Supreme Court to consider whether job applicants must ask for religious accommodations or the employer should recognize the need for them.</p><p><strong>David Welna </strong>reports for <em><a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/02/25/388715070/torture-report-reshapes-conversation-in-guantanamo-courtroom">NPR</a> </em>on how the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA interrogation and detention techniques has changed arguments for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.</p><p><strong>Scott Dodson </strong>discusses Justice <strong>Ruth Bader Ginsburg </strong>and her impact on the Supreme Court and modern jurisprudence at <em><a href="http://hamilton-griffin.com/why-i-edited-this-book-scott-dodson-the-legacy-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/">Hamilton and Griffin on Rights</a></em>.</p><p>In <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/nyregion/christie-broke-law-with-pension-move-new-jersey-judge-says.html?_r=2&amp;gwh=FFE4D2745CFD425F5CC8C84A327C92BB&amp;gwt=pay&amp;assetType=nyt_now">The New York Times</a></em>, <strong>Katie Zernike </strong>reports on a New Jersey judge&rsquo;s ruling that Governor <strong>Chris Christie</strong> broke the law by not making full pension payments.</p><p><strong>Mark Joseph Stern</strong> takes a look in <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/02/campus_rape_investigations_state_legislatures_debate_laws_to_bring_in_criminal.html">Slate</a> </em>at new plans from state legislatures to tackle the problem of rape on college campuses.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-25-2015#commentsHabeas corpusLegal servicesProcedural barriers to courtRights of detaineesArbitrationAbercrombie & FitchCIA Torture ReportGov. Chris ChristieJustice Ruth Bader GinsburgLegalEyesSenate Intelligence CommitteeWed, 25 Feb 2015 14:45:50 +0000ccox923817945 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 24, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-24-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p>In <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/02/fdr_court_packing_plan_obama_and_roosevelt_s_supreme_court_standoffs.single.html">Slate</a></em>, <strong>Ian Millhiser </strong>considers how <em>King v. Burwell</em> shows that &ldquo;the Supreme Court&rsquo;s present members may be willing to repeat the sins of the past, arbitrarily ignoring both the text of the law and their own previous decisions in the service of a political agenda.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Theda Skocpol </strong>writes in <em><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/whos-afraid-of-a-health-care-ruling/385701/">The Atlantic</a> </em>that GOP presidential hopefuls should worry if the Supreme Court rules against the government in <em>King v. Burwell</em>.</p><p><strong>Jennifer L. Clark </strong>writes at the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/early-voting-under-attack-georgia">blog for the Brennan Center</a> that Georgia is considering whether to cut early voting opportunities.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/john_oliver_digs_into_the_horrifying_spectacle_of_judicial_elections/">Salon</a></em>, <strong>Sarah Gray </strong>discusses a recent segment on <strong>John Oliver&rsquo;s </strong>&ldquo;Last Week Tonight,&rdquo; in which the host took a look at the problems of judicial elections.</p><p><strong>Nina Totenberg </strong>of <em><a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/02/23/388520550/supreme-court-considers-visa-case-for-foreign-spouses?utm_campaign=storyshare&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_medium=social">NPR</a></em> provides an overview of the oral argument for a Supreme Court case on visas for foreign spouses.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-24-2015#comments2016 electionearly votingJohn OliverKing v. BurwellLast Week TonightLegalEyesTue, 24 Feb 2015 15:34:15 +0000ccox923817942 at http://www.acslaw.orgRead the Statute: the Attack on Obamacare is Wronghttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/read-the-statute-the-attack-on-obamacare-is-wrong
<p><em>by <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/strauss">David Strauss</a></em>,&nbsp;<em>Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.&nbsp;</em></p><p><em>*</em><em>This post is part of the </em><a href="https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium">ACSblog King v. Burwell symposium</a><em>.</em></p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/Supreme_Court.JPG" style="width: 250px; height: 188px; float: right; margin: 5px;" />One narrative about <em>King v. Burwell</em> goes like this: diehard opponents of the Affordable Care Act pored over the law and found that, if you take the words of the statute at face value, the ACA will blow up. Those words might have been a mistake, but there they are, and the law is the law. The only escape (on this account) is a kind of plea for mercy: to say that the statute should be read in a way that saves it, even if the words are to the contrary. Some defenders of the ACA have drawn the lesson that a text-focused approach to statutes&mdash;the approach that is generally called &ldquo;textualism&rdquo; and is today associated with Justice Scalia&mdash;is a bad idea generally and that <em>King v Burwell</em> shows why that approach should be abandoned.</p><p>Some of this story is right. The litigation is, in fact, the work of diehard opponents of the statute who are trying to blow it up. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone involved in passing the law thought that it contained such a self-destruct mechanism. And there are some problems with Justice Scalia&rsquo;s textualism. But there is no need to get into those problems in <em>King v. Burwell</em>. On the contrary: This is a chance for textualists to gloat.</p><p>That&rsquo;s because the core textualist claim is that the best guide to what Congress wanted to achieve is the words of the statute, not judges&rsquo; speculations about Congress&rsquo;s intentions. <em>King v. Burwell</em> shows that the textualists are right: This time, at least, the words of the ACA tell you all you need to know about what Congress was trying to accomplish. And what the words tell you is that people trying to blow up Obamacare are simply wrong.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/read-the-statute-the-attack-on-obamacare-is-wrong" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/read-the-statute-the-attack-on-obamacare-is-wrong#commentsACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumAffordable Care ActGuest PostKing v. BurwellObamacaretextualismTue, 24 Feb 2015 14:24:29 +0000ccox923817941 at http://www.acslaw.orgThe ACA's Text Proves the Challengers' Reading of the Law Absurdhttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-acas-text-proves-the-challengers-reading-of-the-law-absurd
<p><em>by <a href="http://law2.wlu.edu/faculty/profiledetail.asp?id=24">Timothy S. Jost</a>, the Robert L. Willett Family Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law. </em></p><p><em>*T</em><em>his post is part of the</em> <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium">ACSblog King v. Burwell <em>symposium</em></a>.</p><p>It has become increasingly clear that a Supreme Court ruling for the plaintiffs in <em>King v. Burwell</em> would<img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/HealthCareSupremeCourtProtests.jpg" style="width: 250px; height: 115px; float: right; margin: 5px;" /> be a national disaster. A Supreme Court decision that premium tax credits are only available through state-operate exchanges would not only deprive millions of lower-and moderate-income <a href="http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=2000078">Americans</a> of health insurance, but would put at <a href="http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=2000062">risk</a> the individual insurance markets in 34 states, while health care<a href="http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=2000106"> providers</a> in those states would lose billions of dollars in revenue. Thousands of Americans <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Public%20Health%20Deans%20.pdf/539134648/SC%20amicus%20Public%20Health%20Deans%20.pdf">would die</a> unnecessarily. It is unimaginable that Congress would have intended this result.</p><p>Yet the plaintiffs, in their <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/14-114_rb.pdf/541377968/14-114_rb.pdf">reply brief</a> filed on February 18, contend that none of this matters. To their mind, the ACA only permits premium tax credits to be granted by exchanges &ldquo;established by the State.&rdquo; They argue, &ldquo;it is irrelevant whether Congress <em>subjectively intended </em>to impose the condition [that premium tax credits be granted only by state-operated exchanges]; all that matters is that it <em>objectively </em>and <em>reasonably </em>did so.&rdquo;&nbsp; Indeed, as we near the end of this litigation and the plaintiffs&rsquo; imagined story that Congress intended to limit premium tax credits to state-operated exchanges <a href="http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/3110/king-has-no-clothes-how-case-against-aca-unraveling-our-eyes">has</a><a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120834/republicans-voted-say-obamacare-subsidies-are-universal"> largely</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/18/have-some-gop-lawmakers-flip-flopped-on-obamacare-and-subsidies/">collapsed</a>, they can only argue that the intent of Congress is irrelevant &ndash; all that matters is that the statute does not allow federally facilitated exchanges (FFEs) to grant premium tax credits.</p><p>They can only reach this conclusion, however, by reading the four words they rely on in complete isolation, completely ignoring the rest of the statute. But the Supreme Court has said <a href="http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf/538890688/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf">repeatedly</a> that interpreting a statute requires reading the entire statute, not just isolated phrases. If the Supreme Court follows its own teachings, it must rule for the government.</p><p>Jim Engstrand and I have recently published an<a href="http://business-law-review.law.miami.edu/anomalies-affordable-care-act-arise-reading-phrase-exchange-established-state-context/"> article</a> that looks beyond the plaintiffs&rsquo; four words to the entire ACA. We identify more than 50 other provisions of the ACA that become anomalous, if not absurd, if the words &ldquo;established by the State&rdquo; are read to exclude FFEs.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-acas-text-proves-the-challengers-reading-of-the-law-absurd" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-acas-text-proves-the-challengers-reading-of-the-law-absurd#commentsHealth Care ReformACSblog King v. Burwell symposiumAffordable Care ActGuest Posthealth insuranceKing v. BurwellState Insurance ExchangeMon, 23 Feb 2015 20:32:57 +0000ccox923817937 at http://www.acslaw.orgReport Reveals Ineffectiveness of Mass Incarcerationhttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/report-reveals-ineffectiveness-of-mass-incarceration
<p><em>by </em><a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/expert/lauren-brooke-eisen"><em>Lauren-Brooke Eisen</em></a><em>, Counsel, Justice Program, </em><em><a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/">Brennan Center for Justice</a></em></p><p>*<em>This post is part of our two-week </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/racial-inequalities-in-the-criminal-justice-system-symposium">symposium</a><em> on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.</em></p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/Prisons_4_0.jpg" style="width: 230px; height: 168px; float: right;" /></p><p>For decades, America&rsquo;s incarceration policies have been questioned both for their result of dwarfing every other nation on the planet in the number of people locked behind bars but also for their vast racial disparities.</p><p>Policies enacted during the height of the War on Drugs in the 1980s and 1990s expanded the use of incarceration as a response to rising crime and fear of crime. &nbsp;These include mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing laws, &ldquo;three strikes you&rsquo;re out&rdquo; laws, federal funding targeted for building more prisons and other sentencing regimes that exponentially expanded America&rsquo;s prison population.</p><p>The numbers are revealing. &nbsp;Since the 1970s, incarceration in the U.S. has increased steadily and dramatically. &nbsp;In fact, since 1990 the U.S. has added about 1.1 million additional people behind bars, almost doubling the nation&rsquo;s incarcerated population. &nbsp;These prisoners are disproportionately people of color.</p><p>African-American males are <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/p13.txt">six times more likely</a> to be incarcerated than white males and 2.5 times more likely than Hispanic males. &nbsp;In 2013, almost <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/p13.txt">3 percent</a> of black males were imprisoned compared to 0.5 percent of white males. &nbsp;America&rsquo;s prisons and jails cost more than $80 billion <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&amp;iid=5050">annually</a> &ndash; about equivalent to the budget of the federal Department of Education. &nbsp;This is the phenomenon of mass incarceration.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/what-caused-crime-decline">recent report</a> by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law provides additional empirical evidence for incarceration&rsquo;s ineffectiveness at today&rsquo;s unprecedented levels. &nbsp;Crime across the United States has steadily declined over the last two decades. &nbsp;Currently, the crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. &nbsp;Violent crime has fallen by <a href="http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/index.cfm">51 percent</a> since 1991, and property crime by <a href="http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/index.cfm">43 percent</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/report-reveals-ineffectiveness-of-mass-incarceration" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/report-reveals-ineffectiveness-of-mass-incarceration#commentsPrison policy/incarcerationRacial justiceCriminal JusticeEquality and LibertyGuest PostRacial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System symposiumMon, 23 Feb 2015 16:21:18 +0000nspringer923817934 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 23, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-23-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><strong>Staven Rattner</strong> discusses in <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/22/sunday-review/steven-rattner-for-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html?ref=opinion">The New York Times</a></em> how the Affordable Care Act is working for tens of millions in the United States.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/governors-no-plan-obamacare-subsidies">Talking Points Memo</a></em>, <strong>Steve Peoples</strong> writes that governors throughout the country have no plan if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act subsidies.</p><p><strong>Nicholas Stephanopoulos </strong>argues in the <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stephanopoulos-redistricting-lawsuit-20150222-story.html">Los Angeles Times</a></em> that the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision on an upcoming Arizona redistricting case could present trouble for other sensible redistricting reform efforts throughout the country.</p><p><strong>Richard Gonzales </strong>reports for <em><a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/02/23/387825094/immigration-courts-operating-in-crisis-mode-judges-say">NPR</a></em> that immigration courts are now &ldquo;bogged down in delays&rdquo; and have no immediate solutions to the crisis.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2015/02/gop_could_sabotage_loretta_lynch_nomination.html">The Root</a></em>, <strong>Charles D. Ellison </strong>explains how Republicans could sabotage <strong>Loretta Lynch&rsquo;s</strong> confirmation as the first African-American Attorney General.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-23-2015#commentsAffordable Care ActAttorney GeneralimmigrationLegalEyesLoretta LynchredistrictingMon, 23 Feb 2015 14:46:35 +0000ccox923817931 at http://www.acslaw.orgOngoing Racial Prejudices of Marijuana Arrestshttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/ongoing-racial-prejudices-of-marijuana-arrests
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.tjsl.edu/directory/alex-kreit"><em>Alex Kreit</em></a><em>, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Director, </em><a href="http://www.tjsl.edu/law-social-justice"><em>Center for Law &amp; Social Justice</em></a><em>; Co-Director, Criminal Law Fellowship Program</em></p><p>*<em>This post is part of our two-week </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/racial-inequalities-in-the-criminal-justice-system-symposium">symposium</a><em> on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.</em></p><p>In their influential <a href="http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/bonnie/56va_l_rev971_1970_PART1.pdf">1970 study of marijuana prohibition</a> in the United States, Richard J. Bonnie and Charles H. Whitebread found that &ldquo;racial prejudice&rdquo; was the &ldquo;most prominent&rdquo; factor in the passage of early marijuana prohibition laws.&nbsp; When states began passing these laws in the first few decades of the 1900s, it was not uncommon to see legislatures expressly link marijuana prohibition with race.</p><p>Reporting on a1929 hearing on a marijuana prohibition bill in Montana, for example, the <em>Montana Standard</em> told readers:</p><blockquote><p>&ldquo;There was fun in the House Committee during the week when the Marihuana bill came up for consideration.&nbsp; Marihuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated by Indians.&nbsp; &lsquo;When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff,&rsquo; explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, &lsquo;He thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.&nbsp; I understand that over in Butte where the Mexicans often go for the winter they stage imaginary bullfights in the &lsquo;Bower of Roses&rsquo; or put on tournaments for the favor of &lsquo;Spanish Rose&rsquo; after a couple of whiffs of Marihuana.&rsquo; Everybody laughed and the bill was recommended for passage.&rdquo;</p></blockquote><p>It is rare to see anyone rely on anything approaching this sort of overt racism in the debate over marijuana laws today.&nbsp; Indeed, nearly everyone ― prohibitionists and legalization advocates alike ― agrees that racial disparities in marijuana enforcement (and drug enforcement more broadly) are undesirable.&nbsp; Most also acknowledge the issue is a cause for real concern and action.</p><p>And yet, disparities in marijuana enforcement persist.&nbsp; A <a href="https://www.aclu.org/billions-dollars-wasted-racially-biased-arrests">2013 ACLU report</a> found that blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites, even though the two groups use marijuana at roughly equal rates.&nbsp; In New York City, Mayor de Blasio called racial bias in marijuana arrests &ldquo;wrong and unjust&rdquo; during his campaign.&nbsp; But the <a href="http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Race-Class-NYPD-Marijuana-Arrests-Oct-2014.pdf">first months of his administration</a> saw even more total marijuana possession arrests than before, with an alarming racial divide: 86 percent of the people arrested were black or Latino and only 10 percent were white.</p><p>Why is it so hard to address the disproportionate impact of marijuana arrests on communities of color despite widespread acknowledgement that it is a serious problem?&nbsp; A lot of it has to do with the way marijuana investigations are initiated and the decentralized nature of law enforcement in the United States.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/ongoing-racial-prejudices-of-marijuana-arrests" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/ongoing-racial-prejudices-of-marijuana-arrests#commentsSearch and seizure/Fourth amendmentRacial justiceCriminal JusticeEquality and LibertyGuest PostRacial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System symposiumFri, 20 Feb 2015 17:06:42 +0000nspringer923817930 at http://www.acslaw.orgJudicial Nominations Roundup for February 20, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/judicial-nominations-roundup-for-february-20-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><strong>Peter Weber</strong> writes for&nbsp; <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/539556/liberals-start-caring-about-federal-judges"><em>The Week</em></a> that liberals should care more about federal judges. The recent spate of judicial activism from conservative federal judges, he argues, shows that if they are concerned about policy, &ldquo;liberals may want to start paying attention to the third branch of the federal&nbsp;government.&rdquo;<strong><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/JudicialnomsblogImage.jpg" style="width: 300px; height: 197px; margin: 5px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; float: right;" /></strong></p><p>The <a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/benched-the-more-things-change">blog for the Alliance for Justice</a> examines how Republicans, despite controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee now, are still clearly obstructing judicial nominees and often for no apparent reason.</p><p>A Massachusetts state panel is convening to consider applications for a U.S. District Court vacancy in Boston, reports <a href="http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/01/state_panel_that_screens_massa.html"><em>Mass Live</em></a>. The names of potential candidates will eventually make their way to the president, who will ultimately decide on his nomination.</p><p>There are currently 49 vacancies, and 19 are now considered judicial emergencies. There are 14 pending nominees. For more information see&nbsp;<a href="http://judicialnominations.org/">judicialnominations.org</a>.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/judicial-nominations-roundup-for-february-20-2015#commentsjudicial nominations roundupSenate Judiciary CommitteeFri, 20 Feb 2015 14:56:36 +0000ccox923817927 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 20, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-20-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p><strong>Mark Berman </strong>reports for <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/19/texas-county-issues-its-first-marriage-license-to-same-sex-couple/">The Washington Pos</a>t</em> that a Texas county has issued the state&rsquo;s first marriage license to a same-sex couple. The Texas Supreme Court has issued a stay to halt other such marriages, and the Texas attorney general is arguing that the same-sex couple&rsquo;s marriage is void, reports the <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/same-sex-couple-marries-in-texas-under-one-time-order/2015/02/19/14eaa888-b89a-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html">Associated Press</a></em>.</p><p>Also in <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/19/a-scotus-decision-against-obamacare-could-cost-states-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/">The Washington Post</a>,</em> <strong>George Sargent </strong>writes that a Supreme Court decision against the Affordable Care Act could cost the United States billions of dollars.</p><p>At <em><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/john-roberts-king-burwell">Talking Points Memo</a></em>, <strong>Sahil Kapur </strong>examines the strategy of Affordable Care Act defenders to persuade Chief Justice <strong>John Roberts</strong> in <em>King v. Burwell</em>.</p><p><strong>Joel Cohen </strong>considers in <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/02/grand_jury_reform_in_new_york_judges_would_be_present_and_could_release.html">Slate</a></em> how to reform grand juries in the wake of the controversial Ferguson grand jury and public distrust of the grand jury system.</p><p>At the blog for the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/two-texas-cases-test-boundaries-redistricting-law">Brennan Center for Justice</a>, <strong>Michael Li</strong> discusses two Texas redistricting cases working their way through the courts.</p><p><strong>Gail Collins</strong> writes for <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/gail-collins-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-no-interest-in-retiring.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;module=c-column-top-span-region&amp;region=c-column-top-span-region&amp;WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&amp;_r=1&amp;gwh=254405EB78DA805DE0540E66DCB7B217&amp;gwt=pay&amp;assetType=opinion">The New York Times</a> </em>about Justice <strong>Ruth Bader Ginsburg&rsquo;s</strong> growing popularity and refusal to retire.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-20-2015#commentsAffordable Care ActChief Justice John Robertsgrand juriesKing v. BurwellLegalEyesSame-sex marriageTexasTexas redistrictingFri, 20 Feb 2015 14:51:21 +0000ccox923817926 at http://www.acslaw.orgLegalEyes for February 19, 2015http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-19-2015
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/ccox"><em>Caroline Cox</em></a></p><p>In the <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-big-obamacare-case-20150217-column.html#page=1">Los Angeles Times</a></em>, <strong>Michael Hiltzik </strong>asserts that the continued unraveling of the case against the Affordable Care Act in <em>King v. Burwell</em> reveals that the case is merely &ldquo;an ideological attack&hellip;masquerading as a rule-of-law case.&rdquo;</p><p><strong>Glenn Kessler </strong>of <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/18/have-some-gop-lawmakers-flip-flopped-on-obamacare-and-subsidies/">The Washington Post</a></em> examines whether GOP lawmakers have changed their opinions on the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.</p><p><strong>Cristian Farias</strong> argues at <em><a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121076/texas-court-blocks-obamas-immigration-action-flawed-decision">The New Republic</a></em> that the recent federal judge&rsquo;s temporary injunction that blocked President <strong>Barack Obama&rsquo;s </strong>immigration action was a political move.</p><p>In <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/will-the-supreme-court-consider-affirmative-action-again.html?emc=eta1&amp;_r=0">The New York Times</a>, </em>ACS Board of Directors Member <strong>Linda Greenhouse </strong>considers with the Supreme Court will hear another case on affirmative action.</p><p>At the blog for the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/supreme-court-and-freedom-gerrymander">Brennan Center for Justice</a>, <strong>Michael Li </strong>writes that two cases before the Supreme Court this term may allow politicians greater freedom to gerrymander.</p><p><strong>Irin Carmon </strong>reports for <em><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-law">MSNBC</a></em> that Mississippi has requested that the Supreme court rule on a law that would close the state&rsquo;s last abortion clinic.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/legaleyes-for-february-19-2015#commentsAbortionAffirmative ActionAffordable Care Actexecutive actionimmigrationKing v. BurwellLegalEyesLinda GreenhouseThu, 19 Feb 2015 14:44:01 +0000ccox923817925 at http://www.acslaw.orgKing v. Burwell: Standing Pat Or Standing Correctedhttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/king-v-burwell-standing-pat-or-standing-corrected
<p><em>by <a href="http://www.arnoldporter.com/professionals.cfm?action=view&amp;id=253">Rob Weiner,</a> formerly Associate Deputy Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice, is a partner at Arnold &amp; Porter LLP. This <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/02/king-v-burwell-standing-pat-or-standing.html">post first appeared at </a></em><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/02/king-v-burwell-standing-pat-or-standing.html">Balkinization</a><em>.</em></p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/SCOTUS-TPM2.jpg" style="width: 252px; height: 141px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 5px; float: right;" />The issue of standing to sue has prompted the latest commotion in <em>King v. Burwell,</em> where the Petitioners ask the Supreme Court to deny low-income families the tax subsidies granted under the Affordable Care Act to help them purchase health insurance.&nbsp; To bring a lawsuit in federal court, plaintiffs must have standing to sue.&nbsp; The prerequisite for standing is injury.&nbsp; Plaintiffs challenging a federal law thus must show either that it caused them injury or that they face an imminent risk of injury.&nbsp; If the risk abates or is too speculative, the litigants have no standing, and the court therefore no longer has jurisdiction.</p><p>The plaintiffs (now Petitioners) in <em>King </em>asserted standing based on a roundabout explanation of the harm they would suffer if they received this tax relief.&nbsp; The subsidies, they claimed, would lower their cost of insurance below eight percent of their income, the threshold for the individual mandate to apply.&nbsp; They therefore would be required under the ACA to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty&mdash;a sufficient injury to confer standing.</p><p>Recently, however, some enterprising investigative reporters have raised doubts whether the subsidies would in fact cause any of the plaintiffs in <em>King </em>to be subject to the individual mandate.&nbsp; Two of the four plaintiffs, it turns out, are veterans.&nbsp; Eligibility for VA benefits, or at least enrollment in the program, would exempt them from the individual mandate.&nbsp; A third plaintiff has relocated since the case was filed, and geographic variation in the cost of insurance could affect whether the subsidies put her under the eight percent threshold.&nbsp; And reporters have questioned whether the fourth plaintiff has so little income that she would be exempt from the mandate even with the subsidies.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/king-v-burwell-standing-pat-or-standing-corrected" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/king-v-burwell-standing-pat-or-standing-corrected#commentsSupreme CourtAffordable Care ActCompetitive Enterprise InstituteGuest PostKing v. BurwellStandingThu, 19 Feb 2015 02:36:34 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817924 at http://www.acslaw.orgSens. Renew Effort to Extend Privacy Protections of Consumer Data Stored Overseas http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/sens-renew-effort-to-extend-privacy-protections-of-consumer-data-stored-overseas
<p><em>by <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/about/staff/jleaming">Jeremy Leaming</a></em></p><p>U.S. Senators are again pushing a bill aimed at providing more protection of consumer data stored by American tech companies overseas.</p><p>Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) recently reintroduced the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act (LEADS Act), which languished in the last Congress. The LEADS Act would change the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and, in part, would prohibit federal officials from using a warrant to obtain information stored abroad, unless the information sought belongs to an American.</p><p>In a <a href="http://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/release/senator-coons-reintroduces-bill-to-protect-americans-electronic-data-stored-abroad">press statement</a>, Sen. Coons said, &ldquo;Law enforcement agencies wishing to access Americans&rsquo; data in the cloud ought to get a warrant, and just like warrants for physical evidence, warrants for content under ECPA shouldn&rsquo;t authorize seizure of communications that are located in a foreign country. The government&rsquo;s position that ECPA warrants do apply abroad puts U.S. cloud providers in the position of having to break the privacy laws of foreign countries in which they do business in order to comply with U.S. law. This is not only hurts our businesses&rsquo; competitiveness and costs American jobs, but it also invites reciprocal treatment by our international trading partners.&rdquo;</p><p>The senators&rsquo; statement on the LEADS Act claims it would &ldquo;clarify ECPA by stating that the U.S. government cannot compel disclosure of data from U.S. providers stored abroad if accessing that data would violate the laws of the country where it is stored or if the data is not associated with a U.S. person &ndash; that is, a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, or a company incorporated in the United States.&rdquo;</p><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is hearing an appeal of a federal court refusal to set aside a government issued warrant to obtain email account information stored by Microsoft in Ireland.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e7759b0c-672a-49dd-a2cb-b0955421f6f0/LEADS%20Act%20section-by-section,%20February%2012,%202015.pdf">here</a> for more information about the LEADS Act.</p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/sens-renew-effort-to-extend-privacy-protections-of-consumer-data-stored-overseas#commentsTechnology and I.P.Electronic privacyLaw Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad ActLEADS ActSen. Chris CoonsSen. David HellerSen. Orrin HatchWed, 18 Feb 2015 22:53:26 +0000jleaming@acslaw.org923817923 at http://www.acslaw.orgFreeing the Vote for People with Criminal Convictions in the 50th Anniversary Year of the Voting Rights Acthttp://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/freeing-the-vote-for-people-with-criminal-convictions-in-the-50th-anniversary-year-of-the
<p><em>by </em><a href="http://www.naacpldf.org/ryan-p-haygood"><em>Ryan P. Haygood</em></a><em>, Deputy Director of Litigation, </em><em><a href="http://www.naacpldf.org/">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.</a></em></p><p>*<em>This post is part of our two-week </em><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/racial-inequalities-in-the-criminal-justice-system-symposium">symposium</a><em> on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.</em></p><p><img alt="" src="https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/imce/VotingBoothImage_0.jpg" style="width: 195px; height: 133px; float: right;" /></p><p>The&nbsp;history-making events of &ldquo;Bloody Sunday&rdquo; on March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, ultimately freed&nbsp;the vote for millions of Black voters.&nbsp; But 50 years later, as we commemorate the march that led to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are also reminded that more than two million Black people continue to be denied the right to vote by one of the vestiges of American slavery.</p><p>Black voter registration in Selma in 1965 was made virtually impossible by Alabama&rsquo;s relentless efforts to block the Black vote, which included requiring Blacks to interpret entire sections of Alabama&rsquo;s constitution, an impossible feat for even the most learned.&nbsp; On one occasion, even a Black man who had earned a Ph.D. was unable to pass Alabama&rsquo;s literacy test.</p><p>On Bloody Sunday, John Lewis and Reverend Hosea Williams led almost 600 unarmed men, women and children in a peaceful march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize to the nation their desire as Black people to participate in the political process.</p><p>As they crossed the highest part of the bridge, the marchers were viciously attacked by Alabama state troopers, who ridiculed, tear-gassed, clubbed, spat on, whipped and trampled them with their horses.&nbsp; In the end, Lewis&rsquo;s skull was fractured by a state trooper&rsquo;s nightstick, and 17 other marchers were hospitalized.</p><p>In direct response to Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson five months later signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.&nbsp; Considered by many to be the greatest victory of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act removed barriers, such as literacy tests, that had long kept Blacks from voting.</p><p>Despite the promise of increased political participation by Black people and other people of color created by the Voting Rights Act, which twice led to the election of a Black president, its full potential has not been realized by one of the last excluded segments of our society:&nbsp;Americans with criminal convictions.</p><p>Today, more than 5 million Americans are locked out of the political process by state <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/attorney-general-calls-for-end-to-felony-disenfranchisement-laws">felon disfranchisement</a> laws that disqualify people with felony convictions from voting.<br /><br />The historical record reveals that to prevent newly freed Blacks from voting after the Civil War, many state legislatures in the North and South tailored their felon disfranchisement laws to require the loss of voting rights only for those offenses committed mostly by Black people.</p><p><a href="http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/freeing-the-vote-for-people-with-criminal-convictions-in-the-50th-anniversary-year-of-the" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/freeing-the-vote-for-people-with-criminal-convictions-in-the-50th-anniversary-year-of-the#commentsSupreme CourtVoting rightsRacial justiceCriminal JusticeDemocracy and VotingEquality and LibertyGuest PostRacial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System symposiumWed, 18 Feb 2015 18:11:22 +0000nspringer923817921 at http://www.acslaw.org